Fortress Embassies: A Tanka or Two

Image by Moto Pony via Flickr

Two blog friends, TSB of The Skeptical Bureaucrat and Digger of Life After Jerusalem have both written on the recent dancing in a tide pool about fortress embassies by an outgoing ambassador. After a weekend reading the OIG report on US Embassy Croatia, a very good report I must say, except for questionable staff morale attributed to the location of its new fortress office -- I feel I must wade into the tide pool with a tanka or two…

But first, the OIG on that fortress Embassy in rural Croatia:

In 2003, Embassy Zagreb moved into a new embassy compound (NEC) whose fortress-like exterior and remote location are seen by many employees as a source of irritation and an impediment to conducting efficient, open relations with Croatia. Falling staff levels mean that current occupancy is 20 percent lower than the level for which the building was built. […]

US Embassy Zagreb via Wikipedia

Despite unanimous high regard for the Ambassador among the embassy staff and the Ambassador’s and DCM’s attention to the community, staff morale is not quite as high as expected for an operation so well run, in a pleasant and pro-American country. The principal reason appears to be the location of the NEC. This facility, which opened in 2003, has a very attractive, spacious, and well-designed interior, but it lies amid farmland and industrial warehouses, well outside the urban or even suburban reaches of Zagreb. Consequently, Croatians and third-country interlocutors rarely visit the Embassy; every meeting with a government official or other contact requires a bracket of up to an hour before and after in transit time; and the distance factor inevitably reduces the number of such meetings. In addition, the morning and evening commute consumes almost as much time as in cities with 15 times the population of Zagreb. Housing U.S. employees near the Embassy, as is planned, will reduce the commute but isolate them from the life of the country. In 20 years, Zagreb may sprawl outward to reach the Embassy; meanwhile, the NEC’s location thwarts the primary purpose for its existence. Embassy Zagreb is paying for its safety with two decades or more of unnecessary staff transit time and aggravation. In addition to the location issue, the building is at least 20 percent larger than necessary for the staff now required in Croatia.

Second, I did not realize that an OIG report can be quite inspiring as a muse. A tanka or two below:

the new embassyfortress-like, aggravationan impedimentto open air relationsa beauty obscured, secured

~ * ~

the new embassyfortress-like irritationone big obstructionto candid conversationan eyesore for sure, secure

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. embassies too fortress-like, says American ambassador (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Bidding Sucks, No, Really …

It’s that time of year again when FS folks are subjected to a routine stress test that is unique to the Foreign Service. Every couple of years or so you get to pour your eyes out over a list; mind you it’s no ordinary list. It’s a list of places where you (and your family) could potentially spend the next 2-3 or 4 years of your lives in. And it's not just coming up with your own list, which is difficult enough but the process also includes getting post, the bureau and your guardian angels to "yes" on at least one post on your list, preferably your number #1 pick.

“Don’t get your hopes up” or “Don’t set your heart on XPost” you tell each other during this bidding season. That is, not until you get that cable officially announcing your assignment or you set yourselves up for a disappointment. Because we all know that a “handshake” is just a handshake, an offer can be broken, somebody’s top dog might bark louder than your top dog (and there goes the bone), the bureau might flip, and the sky might rain toads and frogs and you can end up in a place that’s not even in your bidlist …It's not altogether different from a roller coaster ride at times. Remember that time when you've been offered and you've reconciled yourself to going to Managua (#5 on your list) and then the incumbent decided at the very last day that he wanted to stay on that job after all? Party-pooper. What about Suriname? they asked. Can you imagine what it's like having to reconcile yourself the second time to going to another post like Suriname? Yep, it's best not to keep one's hopes up.

The bidding season also includes one tradition from American politics that dates back to the 1800s -- lobbying. I don't know anyone who appreciate those K Street lobbyists -- backdoor influence and all that. But what about those C Street lobbyists? I mean, the well connected, the self promoters, the skilled impression managers do get an edge over others without those skills when it comes to scrambling for the best jobs. Corridor reputation, my god, despite what HR says, still rocks. I wonder if this kind of job lobbying would eventually move into the social networking sphere or into a virtual corridor one day. Knowing the right people is important, not pissing off the right people is just as important. And you wonder why this organization has a pretty risk-averse culture?

The irony here, of course, is everybody gets into the FS on merit and then once you're in, who you know trumps what you know. In fairness, lots of smart folks out there. But with all smarts bring equal, the one who is best connected/well networked/has best guardian angel gets the prize. I've read somewhere some top honcho saying they are making the bidding process more transparent. Is it, transparent, yet? Can you see who's lobbying on behalf of which candidate on job #1 in your bidlist? For some reason, I don't know why, this often reminds me of a certain VP's energy task force.

There's one good news. If you survive this ritual (and you will), you won’t have to do this again until 2012 or later. Around the blogosphere the stress test is on:

Donna from Email From the Embassy writes Apples Vs. Elephants: The Bidding Process:

This is really, really stressful. Because how do you compare, say, a small South American city where crime is rampant but the air is clean, with no direct flights but a great school, to a mid-sized European city where the tourism opportunities are abundant but the winters are dark and the language is unlearnable? How about a country where you have to find your own housing v a place where you need to rely on local medical care? A 12-room school v a place that requires high altitude medication be taken upon arrival? A place where you’re likely to be carjacked vs a place where you could get encephalitis?

KG from Diplodocus writes So Where Have I Been?

Now: we’re bidding. And planning a vacation. There’s a list of jobs and places that we’re staring at every day, and emails we’re sending to friends around the world for advice, for insight, for contacts. The entire exercise of trying to figure out where to go next is harrowing and frustrating. Actually, that’s too kind. Let’s be honest: no matter how good or how connected you are, bidding sucks. Show me an officer who says they enjoy bidding, and I’ll show you a liar.

The Girl in the Rain writes The Bid List is Out

Just typing that phrase gives me huge knots in my stomach. Now that there’s a list of positions I might be eligible to bid on (and lobby for, and kick and scratch and fight over, all hopefully without sounding either obsequious or malicious), I’m giving myself the very rare permission to think about the future. My immediate response to this is, “Oh God oh God oh God.” This whole bidding thing didn’t go well the first time. It went particularly un-well the second time, when I’d allowed myself to hope and then was left completely devastated. And now, the third time, the process has changed and it’s all about knowing the right people from having gotten the right positions the first two times. Um, yeah. Oh God oh God oh God oh God.

Digger of Life After Jerusalem writes a comment

I sympathize. I hate hate hate bidding. On the one hand, you think about the possibilities. Then you think about the fear of not getting a good job, or for us, not getting jobs together. And the whole lobbying thing drives me nuts. I think you should look at my resume and say, hmm, she sounds interesting. And then interview me. Instead I have to rely on previous bosses, some of whom I had to turn in to DS. Ick ick ick

Foreign Service Same-Sex Domestic Partners Get Benefits

HRC’s Statement on Benefits for Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Foreign Service Employees:

While a career in the Foreign Service is rewarding, the demands to serve our country require great commitment and sacrifice by Foreign Service employees and their families. As in American society, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our Post communities abroad. Family members often uproot their lives, endure hardship conditions, and put their own careers on hold to support our overseas missions. The Department of State acknowledges these vital contributions by providing certain family members with benefits, training, and allowances.

The same has not been true for domestic partners of Foreign Service employees. While these partners support the work of our overseas posts, they are not granted benefits and allowances provided for other family members. Domestic partners of federal employees have for too long been treated unequally. As one of my first acts as Secretary, I directed the Department to review whether we had the flexibility to extend additional benefits to domestic partners.

Yesterday, the President issued a memorandum reflecting his commitment to ensuring that same-sex domestic partners receive the maximum benefits that each agency legally can undertake. I am pleased to announce that the Department of State is extending the full range of legally available benefits and allowances to same-sex domestic partners of members of the Foreign Service sent to serve abroad.

Changing our policy to provide training, medical care and other benefits to same-sex domestic partners will promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad. It will help the Department attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers. This change is the right thing to do, and it is the smart thing to do.

We will implement this policy by changing our Foreign Affairs Manual and the Standardized Regulations to allow the same-sex domestic partners of the Department’s Foreign Service employees to qualify as family members for a variety of benefits and allowances. Where appropriate, this extension of benefits and allowances will apply to the children of same-sex domestic partners as well. To qualify for these benefits and allowances on behalf of a same-sex domestic partner, an employee must file an affidavit identifying his or her same-sex domestic partner and certifying to certain eligibility requirements that will be set forth in the FAM.


The Department of State intends to provide the following additional benefits and allowances for declared same-sex domestic partners of eligible employees serving overseas:

• Diplomatic passports,
• Inclusion on employee travel orders to and from posts abroad,
• Shipment of household effects,
• Inclusion in family size calculations for the purpose of making housing allocations,
• Family member preference for employment at posts abroad,
• Use of medical facilities at posts abroad,
• Medical evacuation from posts abroad,
• Emergency travel for partners to visit gravely ill or injured employees and relatives,
• Inclusion as family members for emergency evacuation from posts abroad,
• Subsistence payments related to emergency evacuation from posts abroad,
• Inclusion in calculations of payments of overseas allowances (e.g., payment for quarters, cost of living, and other allowances),
• Representation expenses, and
• Training at the Foreign Service Institute.

The Department also will work with foreign governments to provide same-sex domestic partners, to the extent possible, with diplomatic visas, privileges and immunities, and authorization to work in the local economy.


We look forward to implementing these changes.

* * *

Wow! Change has come to the State Department. See original statement here. I am deeply proud of the State Department today. Here's a shout out to Digger of Life After Jerusalem and to my two dear friends heading off to their new assignment.

POTUS: Toward Achieving Equality on Federal Benefits

On June 17, President Obama released a statement on the Presidential Memorandum and Non-Discrimination, and support of the Lieberman-Baldwin Benefits Legislation.

In 2007, Michael Guest, the first openly gay Ambassador confirmed by the United States Senate, resigned from the Foreign Service. He loved his career, but he had to leave it in the end -- because he believed that the country he served was failing to implement the principles of equality it espoused abroad. His partner was ineligible for training provided to Ambassadorial spouses; he bore the costs of his partner's transportation to his placements abroad; and his partner did not receive the overseas benefits and allowances given to spouses of Ambassadors.

It is too late to prevent Ambassador Guest from having to make the choice he made, but today I am proud to issue a Presidential Memorandum that will go a long way toward achieving equality for many of the hard-working, dedicated, and patriotic LGBT Americans serving in our Federal Government -- Americans like Ambassador Guest. In consultation with Secretary Clinton, who in her role as Secretary of State oversees our foreign service employees, and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry, who oversees human resource management for our civil service employees, my Administration has identified a number of areas in which greater equality can be achieved under existing law by extending to the same-sex partners of Federal employees many of the same benefits already available to the spouses of heterosexual Federal employees. I am therefore requesting the Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to extend the benefits they have identified to the same-sex partners of Federal employees where doing so can be achieved consistent with Federal law. I am also requesting the heads of all other executive departments and agencies to conduct a review of the benefits they administer to determine which may legally be extended to same-sex partners.

But this Presidential Memorandum is just a start. Unfortunately, my Administration is not authorized by existing Federal law to provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That's why I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it.

Continue reading President Obama’s statement here.

Read the Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination here.

Read Digger’s post (Life After Jerusalem) on this here.

* * *

There was one post where local embassy employees were allowed to receive flu shots from the Health Unit, but partners of same sex couples were not. One of these partners happened to be taking care of their minor dependents. So that was real flu prevention. I also remember talking to one DG a few years back about this only to be told it was “DOMA’s” fault. DOMA my foot! DOMA apparently is interested on "defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage." But about 50 percent of marriages end up in divorce in the United States; who's worried about that?


Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court decided that DOMA is unconstitutional when applied to exclude same-sex married couples from federal employee benefits.

As I was writing this today, my elementary grade son who is now home for summer vacation was interested on what I was writing. I gave him a quick explanation and used the example of two friends who are in a same-sex marriage. He thought for a moment then wondered out loud, “Who thought of these rules? They are both human beings.”

Related Item:
Fact Sheet Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non Discrimination

H.R. 2410 Clears HFAC, Sec. 333 Stricken from Bill

On May 20, the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) approved comprehensive legislation to shore up U.S. foreign policy efforts, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (H.R. 2410).

Sec. 333 of the bill which addresses discrimination related to sexual orientation has been stripped from the bill. According to Congressman Berman’s press statement:

After learning that Administration intends to end the practice of excluding the committed partners of Foreign Service officers from the benefits routinely provided to the spouses and children of officers serving abroad, a provision on this issue was removed from the bill.

"I am deeply committed to ending the long-standing practice of treating the committed partners of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers like second-class citizens,” Berman said. “I would not agree to strike a provision in my own bill if I did not feel confident that this would be taken care of by the Administration.”

Click here to read the legislation.

Perhaps this year would be different. But before you get too excited about any part of this new legislation, I must caution you that similar bills had been introduced since the 108th Congress and all of them have ended up in dead pool.


Updated: Digger of Life After Jerusalem thinks this is a horrible idea, pointing out that as long as this is not in the books, it opens the possibility of a roll back by a future SoS. I have to agree. Just imagine if somehow somebody in the mold of a Trent Lott becomes the next SoS.



Related Post:
H.R. 2410: Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

Wanted: Expressions of Interest - Herat, MeS and ???

Photo by US National Guard Army Staff Sgt. Russell Lee Klika
See Afghanistan Today Photo Essay

Lots of staffing news lately – the State Department is hiring, USAID and MCC are hiring and if you work for the Feds already but do not like your job – State may have a job for you in its new Civilian Response Corps. Reports here and here put the number of new hires for the State Department alone at approximately 2,300 in 2009. That’s 1,200-1,500 new career Foreign Service and Civil Service employees above attrition.

In a related, but expected development – Secretary of State Clinton reportedly sent a cable to Foreign Service officers last weekend announcing plans to create more diplomatic positions in Afghanistan. I doubt if anyone in the FS community was taken by surprise, especially after the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. “As part of our expanding efforts in Afghanistan, the department intends to create 14 additional FS positions in Herat and in Mazar-e-Sharif in 2009,” Secretary Clinton wrote. According to AFPS the State Department is “soliciting expressions of interest now” for the seven positions in both Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif. The initiative reflects an ongoing expansion of the State Department’s efforts in Afghanistan that began last fall. Reports indicate that the State Department has allocated 28 new positions to Afghanistan with supplemental funds authorized in fiscal 2008.

CIA World Factbook Map, 2007

Some Quick Facts as of 3/09 (see pdf file)

• Commander: General (USA) David D. McKiernan

• 42 Troop Contributing Nations

• ISAF Total Strength: approx 61,960

• ISAF AOR (Afghanistan land mass) 650,000 km²

• 26 Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)

As of May 2008, the United States was leading 12 of 26 PRTs and 13 other coalition countries were leading the remaining 14 PRTs in Afghanistan.

The GAO reports that as of April last year, 10 of the 12 U.S.-led PRTs included 88 or more military personnel—the majority of whom provide security and other support for the PRTs—and 3 civilian personnel from State, USAID, and USDA. The total number of U.S. government personnel assigned to U.S. PRTs in Afghanistan increased slightly from 1,023 personnel in 2007 to 1,055 personnel in 2008—which includes 1,021 military personnel from DOD and 34 civilian personnel from State, USAID, and USDA. DOD is responsible for paying nearly all of the costs associated with operating PRTs, such as providing their security and life support.

All PRTs in Afghanistan are under ISAF’s operational command, but individual nations, including the United States, lead PRTs and determine their size and structure. U.S.-led PRTs in Afghanistan are led by DOD and are composed primarily of U.S. military personnel. How is this going to change with additional civilian personnel? Probably won't change very much since the civilian surge appears to be heading to the Regional Commands in the North and in the West where we have just one US-led PRT (Farah).

Quick background -- ISAF was formed under a United Nations (UN) mandate in December 2001 to assist the government of Afghanistan in creating a secure environment to enable reconstruction. From 2003 to 2006, ISAF created PRTs, while Operation Enduring Freedom established 17 additional PRTs and transferred them to ISAF. All PRTs came under ISAF’s command on October 5, 2006, when ISAF assumed authority over eastern Afghanistan from the U.S.-led coalition and the United States assumed command of ISAF’s Regional Command East.

The GAO report also indicates that in January 2008, the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (William B. Wood) requested an additional 16 State and USAID staff to support PRTs in Afghanistan. In the request, the Ambassador proposed that some of these staff be placed at regional commands and brigades to provide functional expertise as needed. So over a year later, it looks like he's getting about as many as he wanted but not necessarily where he wanted them. But -- there will soon be a new ambassador in Kabul. The new guy may decide later that he needs more -- not just in the PRTs but also in the regional commands.

State's solicitation of interest is for assignments in Herat and Mazar e-Sharif. Herat falls under the Regional Command West, with four ISAF PRTs currently led by Italy. Mazar e-Sharif is in the Regional Command North with five ISAF PRTs led by Sweden. With this new civilian "surge," the total PRTs should be about comparable in size with the PRTs in Regional Command East where most of the US-led teams are concentrated in .

From ISAF Facts and Figures, March 2009

I suspect that this call up is just part I of the civilian surge; we may yet see additional PRT staffing needs in Regional Command South, where there are currently only 4 ISAF PRTs in operation. We might even see an even further expansion of RC-West and RC-North, after this initial call up depending on how things work out there.


But like they say, this is the bright hot spot right now -- if you can't get into the AfPak team in Foggy Bottom, I'm betting that this is the next best thing... Check out this Flag Grade Reading List for Afghanistan Service if you're thinking about a tour in Afghanistan.

Related Items:

• GAO: Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan and Iraq (October 2008) pdf
• Flag Officer Afghanistan Reading List (pdf)
• White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan: Af/Pak- Word Document

Related Posts:

• Coming Soon - Civilian Surge for Afghanistan?
• A Diplomatic Surge? What’s the Campaign Plan?

Olson v. Clinton: Court Grants Summary Judgment for State in a Discrimination Suit

Leonard Link recently wrote State Department Wins Round Against Gay Foreign Service Officer (h/t to Digger of Life After Jerusalem).

“U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled on March 12 that the U.S. State Department was entitled to summary judgment in a sexual orientation discrimination case brought by Karl Olson, a gay Foreign Service Officer (FSO) who claimed that adverse Employee Evaluation Reports concerning his service in Brazil were impermissibly tainted due to the homophobia of the Consul General in Rio de Janeiro. Olson v. Clinton, 2009 WL 635977 (D.D.C.).”

I had time to spare so I thought I would dig up more about this story.

FSO Karl Olson has been an FSO since 1985, tenured in 1988, and was NIV chief at ConGen Rio de Janeiro from 1993-1996. The case was originally brought against Secretary Rice but was substituted with Secretary Clinton as lead respondent when she became SoS. In his lawsuit, Olson seeks “judicial review of a Foreign Service Grievance Board (“FSGB” or “Board”) decision, alleging that it was arbitrary and capricious and tainted by prejudicial procedural errors.”

He received two Employee Evaluation Reports (EER) during his Rio de Janiero tour -- looks like both reports were from one rating officer but reviewed by two different officers. EERs are use by the Foreign Service Selection Boards to evaluate FSOs for promotion or selection out of the Service.

On May 22, 1998, Olson filed a grievance with State “alleging that the EERs covering his time in Rio were inaccurate and falsely prejudicial, omitted favorable information, contained inadmissible comments, and were based on the anti-homosexual bias of Beffel and Zweifel” (his rating and reviewing officer). The case went to the FS Grievance Board (FSGB), was appealed, decided upon, went to the US District Court (D.C.), got remanded back to FSGB, decided upon, then finally went back to the US District Court (D.C.) where it landed on District Judge Gladys Kessler’s court.

You can read Judge Kessler’s March 12 Memorandum Opinion for Olson v. Clinton, 2009 WL 635977 (D.D.C.) here. Mr. Olson apparently filed all his pleadings under seal, so the Opinion is redacted/blacked out in various sections.

There are four things that strike me most about this case.

#1. Getting entangled with the FSGB and the Court looks like a real hard slog; Gosh, golly – this one took over 10 years! The website for the FSGB is here; everything there seems to be in Word document right now with ongoing work Notice says they are trying to “to make it more user friendly,” but website is bare, except for four annual reports in PDF files. Oh yeah, the search function makes me feel really dumb.

#2. Just see how many characters populated this case besides the FSO and his rating and reviewing officers. There was a third Consul General with his say, an Economic Officer who overheard criticisms about plaintiff, a Deputy Principal Officer with his say, an Administrative Officer, and an Ambassador who stated that he “received so many complaints about Mr. Olson” that he initiated a “campaign to emphasize ‘courtesy and respect’ to our visa officers.” Then there were those colleagues of Mr. Olson who felt that there were "homophobic attitudes" or an "atmosphere of homophobia," including a DAS, a CA management analyst, and three Consular Officers.

Mr. Olson was the NIV chief at a constituent post, which means, there were a few folks between him and the chief of mission. The hierarchy would have been the Consular Section Chief and Consul General at ConGen Rio and then the Deputy Chief of Mission and the Ambassador at Embassy Brasilia. But who’s missing in the line-up of quotes? I have not seen any FSGB documents but no HRO, Consular FSNs, or DCM appeared to be quoted here. In a case like this, I wonder if the co-workers are naturally divided between the litigants? Who decides who speaks out for the record?

#3. There was that 1994 cable to Diplomatic Security from Rio, which the Court find most disturbing. “The cable targeted Plaintiff for no reason other than his sexual orientation and cited his homosexuality as its basis for initiating a defensive briefing (see page 8 for excerpt of cable).”

I guess we need some historical context here. In 1971 there was Gayer v. Laird, a challenge to anti-gay security clearance rules. In 1975, in Singer v. U.S Civil Service Commission, a gay federal employee was fired for being “flamboyant.”

As background, federal agencies used the sexual perversion criteria in the early 1950s to categorize homosexuals as security risks and separate them from government service. Agencies could deny homosexual men and women employment because of their sexual orientation until 1975, when the Civil Service Commission (now OPM) issued guidelines prohibiting the government from denying employment on the basis of sexual orientation. The guidelines, which further define the provisions of Executive Order 10450, resulted from court decisions requiring that persons not be disqualified from federal employment solely on the basis of homosexual conduct. Although the public policy change resulted in the restrictions against employment of homosexuals being lifted, the guidance for granting security clearances to homosexuals remained generally vague or restrictive until the early 1990s.

In 1995, President Clinton signed Executive Order #12968 on Access to Classified Information stating clearly that:

(c) The United States Government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in granting access to classified information.

(d) In determining eligibility for access under this order, agencies may investigate and consider any matter that relates to the determination of whether access is clearly consistent with the interests of national security. No inference concerning the standards in this section may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the employee.

#4. Finally, although the Court pointed out some shortcomings in the FSGB’s decision, it says, “the Court must determine not whether the Board’s decision was perfectly correct, but whether it was arbitrary.” It also states that “it is not this Court’s role to determine the facts anew or to reach its own conclusions whether Plaintiff’s EERs were accurate.” The critical question according to the Court “is not whether bias existed – it did – but whether the FSGB’s decision was arbitrary and capricious when it determined that the EERs were not falsely prejudicial.”

The Court citing Ackerman v. United States [324 F.Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2004)] also states that “Under the highly deferential administrative review standard, the decision to weight different events in a foreign service officer’s employment history is within the expertise of the FSGB and must receive deference.” (See FSGB report on this, p.11)

Now, that brings some rather sobering thoughts, doesn’t it?

Kessler’s Memorandum Opinion on Olson v. Clinton is supposed to be accompanied by an Order, but I can’t locate that right now. I’ll add it here if/when I find it. If you have the link, do please give me a holler.

Diplomatic Bloggers: The Absent is Always Wrong

That “Official Concern” Thingy/4

There are slightly over a hundred private blogs maintained by diplomatic personnel and their family members (Digger of Life After Jerusalem also has an extensive list). Mostly, the blogs were set up to stay in touch with family members and friends back home or as catalogs of their uncommon experiences overseas (local food, exotic travel, foreign culture, etc.). Sometimes, the blogs are a “thinking out loud” online journal on the challenges of life abroad – falling ill overseas, assisting in the repatriation of a deceased American, adjusting to life abroad, tackling 12-hour work in a mass casualty incident, trying to find one’s place amidst constant relocation - in the case of family members, flooded houses, horrendous traffic, eating salad seasoned with Clorox, or just the blahs of life when one is way from family and friends …

E. Wayne Merry recently wrote an op-ed in Washington Times: “In most developed countries, the diplomatic service enjoys a stature sorely lacking here. In part this is because the Foreign Service does not engage the American public, press and Congress.”

I tend to agree. In fact, listening to public officials justifying the lack of funding for the State Department, one often hears about the agency’s and the Foreign Service’s lack of a “natural constituency.” The lack of support in Congress and the American public on State Department and USAID programs is often attributed to the fact that the FS is not supported by a specific voting block (unlike the military with operations across many states, and local jobs, supported by senators and representatives). The USAID funding to development overseas is also often misunderstood even when the US spends less than 1% of the federal budget on development assistance.

But there is also another reason – the State Department, as well as USAID have not figured out how to effectively tell its story. The stories when told are vetted many rungs up so what the American public gets is mostly the “happy talk” and the lighter side of success – you know what I mean, you read them every month in the State magazine.

It’s no wonder that Congress and the American public remains enamored with the notion that diplomats are cookie pushers conducting diplomacy within the cocktail circuits. Have they heard of a family member who lost her hearing for lack of a medical facility, of children suffering from chronic respiratory problems because of bad air, of officers who put in 12-14 hours day with no overtime, of spouses struggling for lack of career options, of officers who are separated from families due to unaccompanied assignments … there are a lot more stories like that …

Figures and charts are nice to look at but people look at them and then forget about them; stories on the other hand, tend to linger longer, connect better and when told well, get passed along.

The Bureau of Public Affairs (PA) carries out the Secretary's mandate to help the American public understand the importance of foreign affairs. But how many citizens went and write to their congressional representatives to help lobby for more funding for the State Department? Makes you wonder how effective it did on this area, considering the anemic funding in the last four years of the previous administration. In fact, I can count with my fingers the times when there were some real public reaction about the Foreign Service or our diplomats in recent memory -- 1) made-up "controversy" (e.g Iraq staffing) , 2) some visa, passport, other scandals and 3) embassy attack or diplomatic casualty. I think empathy for the Service usually runs at the lower end of the stick.


Under PA is a program called “The Secretary's Hometown Diplomats Program.” It is “designed to explain to America what we do and why it matters. We do this by tapping into our best resource: our people. Employees volunteer their time on scheduled trips back to their hometown (during home leave and hometown visits) to talk to local organizations, their elementary and high schools, their college alma maters, meet with state and local elected officials, and to participate in media interviews.”

But think about it -- what if PA develop the Hometown Diplomats Program into a blog aggregator (similar to HuffPo, the Progressive Realist or the FCO) and includes several from the 100 or so private blogs to tell the story of the men and women in the Foreign Service and USAID? Instead of one diplomat reaching out to an audience in his/her hometown, the diplomat has the potential to reach a larger public audience online. It need not be a one-time encounter, it can even develop into an online community with ongoing conversations. Interested personnel can register as bloggers in their private capacity (and work in their own time) and can pre-select subjects that they are willing to write about (e.g. LGBT issues, life in the FS, languages and foreign culture, representing America, development work, transition and relocation, leadership or professional development, etc. etc.).

But those restrictions under the “of official concern” umbrella just would not work in the blogging universe. So if State wants to do this the right way, the regs need some tweaking.

For those who want to blog specifically about policy, PA can open up the official roll of bloggers to diplomats who are not necessarily doing a PA tour of duty. They do have guest bloggers over at DipNote occasionally but then -- you never hear from the same blogger again; except for the Spokesman. The way I see it, the Spokesman already has the podium to talk about the official policy, he/she does not really need to be the primary blogger. Other folks with real names/titles should do that.

The FCO has been experimenting with digital diplomacy since 2007 but it provides some straight-forward rules and guidance: they insist that the bloggers think hard about what they are trying to achieve and who their target audience is before they begin. And they are asked to commit to posting regularly and moderating comments every day. Although they are offered tips on effective use of the medium, FCO bloggers are not told how to write.

Why am I harping on this? According to the 2008 Internet statistics, there are 220.1 million Internet users in the United States. Our Internet penetration rate is currently at 72.5% (the percentage of the total population of a given country or region that uses the Internet). That is the highest in North America.

In related stats, 54% of all online adults in the United States used the government sites. The generational differences in online activities specifically in the use of government sites are as follows:

• Trailing boomers (age 41-50) – 64 %
• Leading Boomers (51-59) – 60%
• Gen X (29-40) – 56%

I just think that with effective use of technology, there is considerable opportunity to engage the American public on the work of the State Department and USAID. We don't need more fact sheets and briefing papers. What these agencies for diplomacy and development need are more storytellers -- not spin, just real stories from the trenches.

The absent is always wrong. How much longer is State/USAID going to be absent from the online conversation that is bursting a thousandfold?

Randy Pausch used to say that "the brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something." I recognize that there are security issues, and the mindset of hoarding/protecting information as well, among specific challenges that need to be overcome. But that is all part of this fast changing fascinating new world. The real challenge is the organization’s ability and willingness to seize the moment, consider the brick walls, and find ways to operate from “what can’t be done” to “what is possible.”

My mate helpfully points out that if real folks write about the "realities" of FS life, that if might turn off applicants for the Foreign Service. Well, look -- there is always that as a possibility. But considering that the Government pays a chunk of taxpayer money to train diplomats in languages and other functional skills, and to ship and house them and their families overseas -- wouldn't it make much more sense to have recruits who know exactly what they are getting into, rather than have recruits from cloud nine who flames out and quit when their expectations are not met?

Related Posts:

• Diplomatic Bloggers: No Blanket Ban but Better Guidelines Needed
• Diplomatic Bloggers: To Blog or Not to Blog
• Diplomatic Bloggers: That “Official Concern” Thingy – The Rules
• Diplomatic Bloggers: Official Blogs, Art Thou Here to Stay?
• Diplomatic Bloggers: Web 2.0 Door Opens

• 
  

Related Items:

• 5 FAM 770 Federal Web Sites (pdf)
• 3 FAM 4170: Official Clearance of Speaking, Writing and Teaching (pdf)

Diplomatic Bloggers: No Blanket Ban but Better Guidelines Needed

That "Official Concern" Thingy/3

As far as I know, there is no blanket ban on blogging by diplomats writing in their private capacity. But there may be soft and hard pressures exerted on employees or their family members not to blog by various characters in the bureaucracy. This is probably one of those many things in the FS that fall into the “it depends” category. This is probably one of those things in the FS that is having a hard time trying to catch up with the real world without a hard push (remember those Wang computers that you had to put up with until Colin Powell said 'nuff already?).

Besides the stated purpose under this guideline for such reviews “to ensure that classified material and other material protected by law are not improperly disclosed, and that the views of employees are not improperly attributed to the U.S. Government,” I think there is also the unarticulated position of limiting public exposure for inside deliberations (e.g. Historian’s Office management dust-up) or having a “sanitized” version of what is placed in the public sphere. Not because the agency is evil or evasive but because the bureaucracy is simply used to getting people to work within the chalked lines. And of course, it is less messy …

And it’s understandable because – well, you read something like this post below, and you’d want to cover your eyes. PA material this is not:

"Gonzo Diplomacy - What we do here in Iraq, especially in the PRTs (Provincial Reconstruction Teams out in the provinces), i.e. making things up as we go along. Usually we use the BIBB Rule to back up our decisions. After all, there IS no place like Baghdad." More here.

I am not familiar with the BIBB Rule but apparently it means “Because it's Baghdad, Baby!”


Or that helpful terminology on dating in the IZ.

TDY (normally it means "Temporary Duty") but here it can also mean "Temporarily Divorced for a Year."

Walk of Shame - the walk from the hootch where you spent the previous night (not your own), wearing the clothes you wore the night before. Of course, I asked if only women walk the "Walk of Shame" and then we universally decided that for men, it would be "The Walk of Fame."

Locationship - A relationship based on being here, now. The relationship usually doesn't last beyind time in Iraq.

Queen for a Year - Yup; all women are beautiful in Iraq. We are all indeed "Queen for a Year."

Under this 3 FAM 4172.1-4 (Use of Disclaimer), employees writing in their private capacity must also include a clear disclaimer that they are not speaking in their official capacity. And yet, at least one has added a Caveat instead of the required disclaimer: “I must explain to non-State Department people that I am a Foreign Service Officer - a diplomat. I lived and worked in the International (Green) Zone (the "IZ")… Special note to Foreign Service Personnel: If you're thinking of bidding on Iraq, please be sure to read my message just for you <--snipped-->. If you decide you're interested, let your CDO know.” (CDO would be career development officer).

Apparently this blog above is linked to in the Intranet from HR, which may not be official endorsement, but certainly could be considered an “un-official” plug for service in Iraq. And of course, Matel-in-Iraq (where I described my year of service as ePRT leader deployed with the U.S. Marines in Western Iraq) was in DipNote’s blogroll since late 2007 until most of last year.


These two blogs were written by FS personnel assigned in Iraq, about life in Baghdad in 2006 as a Senior HR Officer and in an embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team in Al Al Asad, Al Anbar Province, Iraq from 2007-2008. Iraq, in the often repeated mantra is our most important foreign policy engagement. If this does not fall under “official concern…” well then …

One might say that well - no wonder State wants to clear what its employees write even in their private capacity. But then you read The Hegemonist, for instance, which is a great read for anyone interested in FS careers or those starting out, and you'd starting thinking - hey , wait a minute. TH has done the research, the writing and the posting in his own time; heck - HR/REE/REC, should be happy he is lending a free hand, and he's not even claiming overtime! He has also dutifully observed the disclaimer requirement. This other one talks about FS tips and tricks, which should also make Ask Admin happier! They're helpful resources and they're free.

Logic dictates that if senior officials do not have time to clear materials written in your private capacity in Timor-Liste or in London, they absolutely won’t have time to clear your random thoughts and musings in a war zone.

But what to make of all these?

Are we to understand that although these guidelines have been in the books forever -- that State will look the other way, as long as your blog is not controversial and remains obscure? (John Matel was controversial at some point when he wrote his To My Overwrought Colleagues, but he did not put State in a bad light), or as long as the New York Times has not come calling for that interview? Or could it simply be that State is trying to catch up with the times, but has not quite made up its mind on how to change the rules?

I'd like to think its the latter. I understand why it is needed and I don't disagree that some guidelines are necessary, except that I don't like having everything swept under the one carpet of "official concern." Diplomats are the country's representatives 24/7, 365 days, whether on duty, off duty, or on travel. But the world is much more connected than we can imagine. Keeping control of information these days is like erecting an 8-ft dike to protect against the onslaught of a 25-ft tsunami. There has to be a smarter way around this without getting choked under the limitations of the muse of “official concern.” Less restrictive guidelines are needed.

Related Posts:

• Diplomatic Bloggers: To Blog or Not to Blog
• Diplomatic Bloggers: That “Official Concern” Thingy – The Rules
• Diplomatic Bloggers: Official Blogs, Art Thou Here to Stay?
• Diplomatic Bloggers: Web 2.0 Door Opens

Related Items:

• 5 FAM 770 Federal Web Sites (pdf)
• 3 FAM 4170: Official Clearance of Speaking, Writing and Teaching (pdf)

Quickie: A Note on Blogging

Knowledge, mural by Robert Lewis Reid
from wikimedia commons

TH of The Hegemonist faces some tough decisions on blogging and Digger over at Life After Jerusalem has some related thoughts.

Here is something from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that might be useful reading at the moment:

Blogs are like personal telephone calls crossed with newspapers. They're the perfect tool for sharing your favorite chocolate mousse recipe with friends--or for upholding the basic tenets of democracy by letting the public know that a corrupt government official has been paying off your boss.

If you blog, there are no guarantees you'll attract a readership of thousands. But at least a few readers will find your blog, and they may be the people you'd least want or expect. These include potential or current employers, coworkers, and professional colleagues; your neighbors; your spouse or partner; your family; and anyone else curious enough to type your name, email address or screen name into Google or Feedster and click a few links.

Continue reading How to Blog Safely (About Work or Anything Else). More on blogging along this line later.

Secretary Clinton's Welcome Remarks at Foggy Bottom

A day after she was confirmed as the 67th Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton walked into the State Department after 9:00 a.m., to a hail of camera flashes and a rousing welcome. State does not yet have the full video of her remarks up, but the 5-min video from WaPo gives a brief excerpt of her talk to DOS employees. State has just posted a 24 min video of her remarks. You'll see Pat Kennedy, Bill Burns and AFSA State VP Steve Kashkett meeting her at the entrance. Below is the text of her welcome remarks:

Thank you. Thank you all so much. Well, I am absolutely honored and thrilled beyond words to be here with you as our nation's 67^th Secretary of State. And I believe, with all of my heart, that this is a new era for America. (Applause.)

President Obama set the tone with his inaugural address. And the work of the Obama-Biden Administration is committed to advancing America's national security, furthering America's interests, and respecting and exemplifying America's values around the world. (Applause.)

There are three legs to the stool of American foreign policy: defense, diplomacy, and development. And we are responsible for two of the three legs. And we will make clear, as we go forward, that diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long-term objectives of the United States. And I will do all that I can, working with you, to make it abundantly clear that robust diplomacy and effective development are the best long-term tools for securing America's future. (Applause.)

In my testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, I spoke a lot about smart power. Well, at the heart of smart power are smart people, and you are those people. And you are the ones that we will count on and turn to for the advice and counsel, the expertise and experience to make good on the promises of this new Administration.

I want to thank Steve for his comments that really summarized the full range of experience and expertise of both the Foreign Service and the Civil Service, and also to send my appreciation to all of the nationals around the world who work in our embassies and work with government officials.

This is going to be a challenging time and it will require 21^st century tools and solutions to meet our problems and seize our opportunities. I'm going to be asking a lot of you. I want you to think outside the proverbial box. I want you to give me the best advice you can. I want you to understand there is nothing that I welcome more than a good debate and the kind of dialogue - (applause) - that will make us better. (Applause.)

We cannot be our best if we don't demand that from ourselves and each other. I will give you my very best efforts. I will do all that I can, working with our President, to make sure that we deliver on the promises that are at the very core of what this new Administration and this new era represent. So we need to collaborate, and we need to have a sense of openness and candor in this building. And I invite that.

Now, not everybody's ideas - (applause) - will make it into policy, but we will be better because we have heard from you.

I also want to address a word to the USAID family. I will be there tomorrow to greet them and thank them for the work they've done on behalf of development through some very difficult years, because they will be our partners. (Applause.)

Now, as Steve candidly said, so far, we're thrilled. (Laughter.) This is not going to be easy. (Laughter.) I don't want anybody to leave this extraordinarily warm reception thinking, oh, good - (laughter) - you know, this is going to be great. It's going to be hard. But if it weren't hard, somebody else could do it, besides the professionals of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service and our Diplomatic and Development Corps. (Applause.)

Now, as you may have heard percolating through the building, you know, when I was first nominated, I realized that there was this living, organic creature known as the building. (Laughter.) And as you probably already know, we are expecting the President and the Vice President to be here in the State Department this afternoon. (Applause.)

Among the many conversations that I've had with the President and with the Vice President, over years, but certainly much more astutely and in a concentrated way in the last weeks, we want to send a clear and unequivocal message: This is a team, and you are the members of that team. There isn't anything that I can get done from the seventh floor or the President can get done from the Oval Office, unless we make clear we are all on the American team. We are not any longer going to tolerate the kind of divisiveness that has paralyzed and undermined our ability to get things done for America.

So the President will be here - (applause) - on his second day in office to let all of you know, and all who are serving on our behalf around the world, how seriously committed he is to working with us. So this is going to be a great adventure. We'll have some ups and some downs. We'll face some obstacles along the way. But be of good cheer - (laughter) - and be of strong heart, and do not grow weary, as we attempt to do good on behalf of our country and the world.

I think this is a time of such potential and possibility. I don't get up in the morning just thinking about the threats and the dangers, as real as they are. I also think about what we can do and who we are and what we represent. So I take this office with a real sense of joy and responsibility, commitment and collaboration. And now, ladies and gentlemen, let's get to work. (Applause.)

Thank you and God bless you.

Read Digger's (Life After Jerusalem) first person account of Hillary's first day at Foggy Bottom.

Click here to see a CNN video of HRC's arrival at the State Department. Another one here with part of here speech. Folks seemed absolutely THRILLED, weren't they?

Update 1/23/2009: Click here for Andrea Mitchell on HRC's arrival at Foggy Bottom. Looks like the main video above is not currently available from brightcove. I'm not sure if this is a glitch from the video provider or from blogger.